72 replies to this topic

[stef lam]

Well done! I got alot of information through here! Thanks guys!

[GCH]

Thank you for referring me to this thread. Got loads of information regarding my inquiries. 

[nurulnazirah]

Thanks a lot for the worksheet. Really helpfull.....

[jorch]

Muy buen aporte

 

Good apport .... thanks

[Charles.C]

Hi jorch.

 

You're welcome.

 

And Welcome to the Forum ! 

[sbarzee]

So extremely helpful! Thank you so much.

[Zaril]

Thank so much, Charles for sharing this compilation with us. This really help me a lot. 

[Ryan M.]

Nice work Charles.  It says in some of those "environmental swabs", but just to be clear the assumption is all Zone 1 surfaces and perhaps Zone 2?

[Charles.C]

Nice work Charles.  It says in some of those "environmental swabs", but just to be clear the assumption is all Zone 1 surfaces and perhaps Zone 2?

Hi Ryan,

Can you identify the location of yr quote.? I am lazy to search through excel.

[Ryan M.]

I can't recall the specific sheet in the excel workbook, but there were a number of references to "environmental swabs" and then descriptions around some areas.  I'm thinking this all relates to product contact surfaces, or possible product contact surfaces, with those ranges/limits.

 

 

Hi Ryan,

Can you identify the location of yr quote.? I am lazy to search through excel.

[Charles.C]

I can't recall the specific sheet in the excel workbook, but there were a number of references to "environmental swabs" and then descriptions around some areas.  I'm thinking this all relates to product contact surfaces, or possible product contact surfaces, with those ranges/limits.

 

hi Ryan,

 

TBH, offhand, I don't think any of the data shown came from articles which specifically addressed "zoning". So the conclusions/suggested limits are sort of generic as far as specific location is concerned.

 

The usual starting point for a (micro.) hygiene study demands the establishment of a baseline, ie what level of cleanliness is a realistic target for the specific process. This may not coincide with the theoretical target. My previous compilation (see link in post 1) contains a table of various published micro.targets plus related quotes/comments. The diversity of expectations/ observations is prodigious. One obvious factor is the diversity of food processes., eg is it reasonable to expect the quantitative cleanliness of process tables in a slaughterhouse to equal those used for preparing RTE sandwiches ?.

 

An anecdotal rule-of-thumb is that a just "cleaned" surface should have an APC not > 10% of the "typical"  micro. working condition (presumably area based). But then again, the longer you rub, the lower the APC. It's a very subjective topic.

[Charles.C]

addendum

 

Hi Ryan,

 

As a follow-up to post 33 –

 

It says in some of those "environmental swabs", but just to be clear the assumption is all Zone 1 surfaces and perhaps Zone 2?

 

This is a deceptively simple Sampling query.

 

Note that environmental monitoring (and zoning) may focus on either/both of (a) Hygiene and (b) Pathogen detection.

The surface micro.data/limits in the excel compilation for, APC, Coliform, E.coli (et al)  may be considered to measure the effectiveness of a facility's Cleaning Procedures to achieve a satisfactory level of  Hygiene (Sanitation). (ATP-based criteria are an alternative technique).

 

Depending on the reference, Sampling schemes may involve permutations of any/all of the 3-4 Zones typically presented. The choice regarding location/frequency is typically based on a mixture of Risk Assessment/prioritization combined with process factors /food types/expert opinions. Suggested Zoning/Sampling procedures for a/b, may/may not be identical. The result is that Sampling for a/b may involve the entire Zonal range or (varying) portions of it (see refs below).

 

I have enclosed 5 examples to illustrate some of the published Zoning/Testing approaches, there are many others –

 

   Hygiene Monitoring Strategies (2013).pdf   114.2KB   356 downloads

(discusses use of Zoning as particularly related to Hygiene sampling program)

 Environmental Monitoring Program (EMP),AIB,2013.pdf   412.49KB   386 downloads

(integrated Salmonella/Listeria/Hygiene sampling/testing program based on Zones)

 GMA Industry Handbook.pdf   1.52MB   300 downloads

(see Pg 65/sec.3.6.4 et seq)(RTE, Salmonella [Zoning], Hygiene[non-Zoning]).

 Environmental-Monitoring, Pathogen-Hygiene,Cornell Uni..pdf   2.9MB   347 downloads

(RTE, Integrated Zoning, illustrates divergence of opinions/potential zoning complexity)

 Zoning classification in the Food processing area,,2015.pdf   254.11KB   316 downloads

(discusses iso22002/BRC7 zoning concepts, hygiene/pathogen individual-combined zoning aspects, wet-dry cleaning procedures, etc)

[Ryan M.]

Yes, thanks for the added clarification and resources Charles.

[Joseah njuguna]

Hi jtang,

 

Thanks for the comment.  Food QA via chemistry - it pays the rent.

Great information there aside from paying rent I can read passion.

[anavet]

Thank you for the information! It is very useful. I have an operator that have the limits of surfaces based on technical study of John T. Patterson & David B. Stweart. But I can´t find this! This exist? Thanks 

[Rener De Jesus]

Guys, is it okay to test those zone 1 surfaces/areas for TPC, Enterobacteriaceae, Coliforms, and E.coli? Or only one of those indicators are enough?

[Charles.C]

Guys, is it okay to test those zone 1 surfaces/areas for TPC, Enterobacteriaceae, Coliforms, and E.coli? Or only one of those indicators are enough?

Hi Rener de Jesus,

 

It likely depends on the nature of your Operation. And the specific objective of yr sampling/analysis, eg Regulatory Compliance..

 

I suggest you initially read the first file in Post 37 which discusses (some) options. Possibly followed by the additional files if relevant.

[Ryan M.]

Guys, is it okay to test those zone 1 surfaces/areas for TPC, Enterobacteriaceae, Coliforms, and E.coli? Or only one of those indicators are enough?

 

If it were me I would do TPC and Enterobacter. or Coliforms.  I wouldn't do E.coli because some outside bodies who may view the results consider them to be a contaminant and will then ask, "Did you do a cleaning/sanitation after swabbing before starting production?"

 

The Enterobacter. captures coliforms and E.coli so that should be sufficient.

[Charles.C]

If it were me I would do TPC and Enterobacter. or Coliforms.  I wouldn't do E.coli because some outside bodies who may view the results consider them to be a contaminant and will then ask, "Did you do a cleaning/sanitation after swabbing before starting production?"

 

The Enterobacter. captures coliforms and E.coli so that should be sufficient.

 

Hi Ryan,

 

It may get more interesting if it's RTE.

 

So many (frequently debated/subjective) factors are involved from any predictive POV. Possibly including geographical.

 

For example Enterobacteriaceae ("Enterobacter" is a genus) is sometimes (albeit afaik unproven) regarded as a safety indicator since, inter alia, it includes Salmonella/Shigella.

 

JFI and not claimed to be definitive -

 

http://mb-labs.com/r...microorganisms/

[Rener De Jesus]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts! Those help us a lot.

[mile]

Dear All,

I previously posted a table of various micro. guidelines for food contact surfaces which were mostly issued pre-2000 at this link –

http://www.ifsqn.com...dpost__p__22352

To update the earlier info., the attached excel file presents guideline data I have accumulated for 12 countries issued in the period 2000 – 2012. The compilation demonstrates that for a range of food-related scenarios, some “average” opinions for various (just) cleaned surfaces are –

(a) For Aerobic Plate Count (APC) - the majority of data suggests that, for routine cleaning/sanitising, surfaces typically have maximum APC counts in the range 10-100cfu/cm2 .
(b) For factors like Coliform, (generic) E.coli, Enterobacteriaceae, S.aureus, the expected maxima are, predictably, low, eg 1-10 cfu/cm2, or undetected. The latter requirement also invariably applies for “zero-tolerance” pathogenic microbial species.

Hopefully of some interest. Further input / comments welcome as usual.

Compilation of International Micro. Guidelines for food contact surfaces, 2000 onwards.xls

Rgds / Charles.C

Dear Charles,

 

Thank you so much for the effort to compile useful information in the excel sheet.

 

Kind Regards,

 

Ahmed

[AHDL]

thank you

[yogirl]

Thank you Charles! That is very helpful to many of us

[TESUKA KUNIMITSU]

Dear All,

 

I previously posted a table of various micro. guidelines for food contact surfaces which were mostly issued pre-2000 at this link –

http://www.ifsqn.com...dpost__p__22352

To update the earlier info., the attached excel file presents guideline data I have accumulated for 12 countries issued in the period 2000 – 2012. The compilation demonstrates that for a range of food-related scenarios, some “average” opinions for various (just) cleaned surfaces are –

(a) For Aerobic Plate Count (APC) - the majority of data suggests that, for routine cleaning/sanitising, surfaces typically have maximum APC counts in the range 10-100cfu/cm2 .
(b) For factors like Coliform, (generic) E.coli, Enterobacteriaceae, S.aureus, the expected maxima are, predictably, low, eg 1-10 cfu/cm2, or undetected. The latter requirement also invariably applies for “zero-tolerance” pathogenic microbial species.

Hopefully of some interest. Further input / comments welcome as usual.

Compilation of International Micro. Guidelines for food contact surfaces, 2000 onwards.xls

Rgds / Charles.C

 

muchas gracias, lo estaba buscando. saludos.

[TESUKA KUNIMITSU]

MUCHAS GRACIAS CHARLES POR EL APORTE SOY ESTUDIANTE.